The events of September
11, 2001 have raised to a new height the level of terror and ruthlessness
radical groups are willing to unleash in pursuit of political goals. The
level of destruction inflicted on civilians, the brutality with which the
terrorist attacks were executed, and the fact that the terrorist design
is undertaken by extensive deliberation and determination sent shock waves
throughout the world, and brought condemnation from foes and friends alike.
Targeting of thousands of unarmed civilians, using civilian airliners carrying
civilian passengers, and bringing down two of the most spectacular buildings
in the whole planet, in a drama that was played on live TV in front of
millions of viewers, made the attacks even more sinister and apocalyptic.

ANGUISH OVER “WHY?”

In a televised address to a joint
session of Congress, President Bush went directly to the heart of the question
that continues to puzzle Americans: Why would anyone want to harm America?
What motivates nineteen Middle Eastern men to shatter the life of several
thousands civilians, and to bring pain, grieve, and anguish to even greater
number of their families, friends, and countrymen? What in the world would
produce the degree of anger, hate, and hostility we all have seen explode
in front of our eyes, as we sat watching with bewilderment and horror the
two civilian jetliners crash into the World Trade Center’s twin towers?

“Why do they hate us?” Mr.
Bush asked in his statement to Congress. His answer was short and straightforward:
“They hate what they see right in this chamber: a democratically elected
government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our
freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble
and disagree with each other.” Bush’s answer, while containing elements
of truth, seems to be lacking on several important accounts.

It is true that the radical
groups who attacked the United States have little appreciation of freedom
and democracy. Most peoples in the Middle East have had no experience in
recent memories of freedom of speech and assembly, and no experience of
true and functional democracy. However, while radicals, who constitute
a fraction of Middle Eastern societies, are involved in destructive endeavors
that are bound to shake the foundation of world peace, the bulk of people
in the Middle East yearn for an open and free political system, where freedom
of religion, speech, and assembly are part and parcel of their political
experience. It is also true that self-appointed leaders, who rely on military
force to keep their population in check, rule most political regimes in
the Middle East.

It is equally true that the
values of freedom and democracy are held with high esteem by Americans.
Americans have been vigilant in ensuring that the freedom and democracy
they have inherited from the founders of this great nation are not usurped
or taken away. The combination of political and religious freedoms on the
one hand, and the accountability of elected officials, give this country
edge over others, and attract every year hundreds of thousands of creative
and hardworking people who find in America’s freedom a conducive atmosphere
to improve their personal and to enrich the life of their community and
adopted country.

NATIONAL INTEREST VS. HUMAN RIGHTS

The sad fact, which Mr. Bush has
failed so far to recognize and acknowledge, is that in many parts of the
world, and particularly in the Middle East, America is associated not with
freedom and democracy but with suppressive and autocratic regimes. For
the last fifty years, successive United States governments have stood behind
self-appointed leaders, providing them with financial and military support,
as well as security and political guidance. Far from being the guardian
of freedom and democracy, the United States is often seen as the power
behind military regimes and brutal dictators.

The United States involvement
in Iran is a case in point. The United States Central Intelligence Agency
was directly involved in engineering the coup détente that removed
the democratically elected government of Mohammed Musadeq, and installed
the Shah regime in Iran in 1954. Despite his abuse of the civil liberties
of his people, and his extensive use of state security forces to suppress
critics and opposition forces, the Shah continued to receive the blessing
of American leaders. President Carter, who insisted that the United States
foreign policy must be informed by American concerns over human rights,
praised the Shah during a visit shortly before the latter was ousted by
the Islamic revolution. The United States later took an active part in
arming Saddam Hussein in a bid to topple the revolutionary government in
Tehran. To ensure the cooperation of the Iraqi military government, the
Reagan Administration kept silent when Saddam used Chemical weapons against
Iranians as well as against the Kurdish opposition in Northern Iraq. It
was only when the belligerent Saddam turned his newly acquired military
strength against the oil rich Gulf countries that he was declared a renegade.

The blunders of United States
foreign policy in the Middle East have not ended with the Gulf war. Rather
than finishing Saddam, US-led coalition decided to keep him in power and
to impose an economic embargo on Iraq. The American decision brought about
a human disaster of great magnitude. For over a decade, the people of the
Middle East, and many humanitarian workers and human rights activists,
had to watch in horror hundreds of thousands of ill-stricken and malnourished
Iraqi civilians perish.

America’s commitments to freedom
and democracy have hardly had any bearings on United States foreign policies
towards Iraq and Iran. To the Iraqis and Iranians, the United States appears
as a technologically advanced military power, unrestrained by moral obligation
in its pursuit of its own self-interest.

The failure of successive United
States administrations to project clear and sustained interests in freedom
and democracy can be seen in the United States position vis-à-vis
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For decades, Arabs and Muslims watched
the Israeli government expand its territories at the expense of its Arab
neighbors. Israel was allowed to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, the Golan
Heights, and South Lebanon with the tacit approval and blessing, and occasionally
with the open support, of the United States government, in spite of successive
UN resolutions and clear violation of International law.

Over the past year, Middle
Easterners watch countless pictures of Israeli soldiers shooting at rock-throwing
Palestinian kids, of US-made Apache, designed to destroy tanks, used for
assassinating Palestinian activists, and US-made tanks and rocket launchers
used to suppress the Palestinian Intifada.

COMBATING TERRORISM

Terrorism is a plight that must be
fought. No amount of anger and discontent can justify the targeting of
non-combatant civilians. But terrorism cannot be fought by mystifying it
or by ignoring its root causes. The first step for developing a sound
strategy to effectively combat terrorism is to examine the conditions that
give rise to the anger, frustration, and desperation that fuel all terrorist
acts. To focus on individuals and organizations that employ terror, while
ignoring the socio-political circumstances that give rise to acts of desperation,
can potentially strengthen the arms of the terrorists. A devastating force
unleashed against elusive groups can exacerbate the very conditions that
gave rise to resentment, frustration, and anger.

America is admired throughout
the world for a political system characterized by freedom, democracy, and
the rule of law. But America is resented in many parts of the world for,
ironically, its willingness to support authoritarian and corrupt regimes
as long as they advance American economic and strategic interests. Those
who are using terror against America are the product of political repression.
They are the product of Middle Eastern regimes befriended by the United
States but have little respect for freedom and democracy. It is indeed
a sad but true reality that many prefer to ignore: Free and democratic
America has been nurturing repression aboard. To acknowledge this fact
is the first step to deal with the roots of terrorism.

Equally important is that we
pursue a methodical and persistent approach to terrorism. Terrorism must
be clearly defined, and systematically confronted. If terrorism is defined
as the use of violence against unarmed civilians, then we have to ensure
that all individuals and organizations that fit this description, regardless
of their positioning and loyalty, are identified as such. The United
States government has not been consistent in identifying terrorist acts.
The United States government did not recognize the Russian brutal attacks
against Chechnya, and its use of disproportionate force to flatten the
Chechen capital for what it is, and for what it represents.

Similarly, The Israeli incursion
into Lebanon, its shelling of Beirut and other civilian targets, resulting
in thousands of civilian deaths, did not receive the moral condemnation
it deserved. Israel continues to use excessive military force to suppression
an essentially civilian uprising against its occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza. The Bush administration has so far given Israel a free hand to
bully the Palestinians and to violate the terms of its Oslo commitments.

SINGLING OUT ISLAM

The president, along with several
American leaders, counseled against targeting Muslim Americans, and went
out of his way to dissociate Islam and terrorism. Still may, particularly
in the media, continued to make both subtle and direct attacks on Islam’s
beliefs and values. Among all religions, Islam has been singled out by
media groups, and unfairly blamed for acts of terror carried out by Muslim
groups. The blame is frequently subtle, articulated through the old and
primitive instrument of “guilt by association.” It often takes the
form of using Islam as an adjective to describe terrorism, hence the catch
phrase “Islamic terrorism.” Alternatively, Islamic symbols and sounds—e.g.
mosque, prayer, call for prayer, etc.—are played in the background every
time a terrorism act is reported. Occasionally, the blame is laid at the
doorstep of Islam by self-appointed experts on terrorism, a là Daniel
Pines and Steven Emerson, who find it convenient to point fingers at all
practicing Muslims in order to push their narrow political agenda.

The efforts to blame Islam
for terrorism are not only baseless and erroneous, but are unmistakably
malicious and ill-intended. Islam, like many religious traditions, stresses
charity, mercy, and compassion. Historically, Islam is recognized for its
tolerance toward other religions, even when bigotry and intolerance were
widely accepted and practiced in medieval times. But like other religious
traditions, Islam recognizes the right of peoples to return evil for evil,
even though it puts higher premium on forgiveness. Reciprocity, or eye
for an eye, is found not only in Islam, but in Christianity and Judaism
as well. Further, like other religions, Islamic texts contain statements
that emphasize forgiveness and peace, along with others that permit the
use of force for fighting back against aggression and for achieving just
peace.

In Deuteronomy, the fifth book
of the Torah, Moses narrates to the Israelites a fiery message from God
as they prepare to enter the promised land: “I will make mine arrows drunk
with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of
the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the
enemy.”

Likewise, the Bible contains
texts that call for the use of force to avenge the rights of people and
to punish the unjust. In the Gospel of Matthew, a statement attributed
to Jesus reads: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came
not to send peace, but the sword.”

A partial and out-of-context
reading of religious texts, combined with a desire to reciprocate against
real of perceived injustice, may lead misguided individuals and radical
groups to commit atrocities in the name of religion and justice. Muslim
scholars and leaders must speak against using Islam and Islamic doctrines
to undertake acts rooted in political ambition or frustration.

By the same token, media organizations
have the duty to present a balanced picture of Muslim society and faith,
rather than feeding on the frenzy of bigotry and stereotyping. The media
more often than not focuses on the eccentric and extraordinary, and as
such brings distorted pictures of Middle Eastern realities. Rather than
showing that radical Islamic groups standing on the fringe outside mainstream
society, the media reverse the picture by projecting radicalism and extremism
as the norm in the Middle East. The sight of a handful Palestinian youths
celebrating an American calamity is newsworthy, but a demonstration by
thousands of sympathetic Arabs is not.

RETHINKING United States FOREING
POLICY

United States foreign policy that
aligns American support behind tyrants and dictators, and against the legitimate
aspirations of popular movements pursuing national independence or democratic
rule, is informed by notions and principles advanced by political realists.
That is, they are informed by the nationalist political culture of nineteenth-century
Europe. The political realist approach to international politics insists
that national leaders have one paramount obligation, i.e. advancing the
national-interests of their nations. Political realists justify this position
by pointing out that in the absence of international law that can be enforced
by a central authority, nations are justified in enforcing their own interests
and way of life. To do otherwise, political realists stress, is to give
unprincipled foreign powers to grow unchecked.

The pursuit of self-defined
national interests led Europe to two devastating world wars. This, however,
did not put an end to political realism, even after the United States introduced
a new approach to international relations based on UN organization and
International Law, as many of its advocates found in the cold war atmosphere
a basis for reproducing a bit more sophisticated argument to place national
interests over the demand of right and justice.

The United States is the sole
superpower today, and has the opportunity to restructure world politics
so as it begins to resemble the internal politics of the United States.
That is, international politics should no more be based on the notion of
might makes right. The American people have long rejected such a notion
in national politics and fought a war of independence, and later a civil
war, to ensure that those who have been endowed by their creator with equal
freedoms and dignity are treated as such. Indeed, the United States and
the American people are uniquely situated to expand the values of freedom,
equality, and rule of law from the national to the international domain.
Not only is the United States an unrivaled superpower, but Americans constitute
a microcosm of world population. America is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious
society whose ethnic and religious groups represent the major ethnic and
religious communities that form the modern world. Africans, Anglo-Saxons,
Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians, Irish, Latinos, and Slavs
live peacefully in America, and work together in pursuit of their individual
and collective dreams, and confess and practice freely different religions,
including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, along with a host of other
religions.

GLOBAL PEACE AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

The recent tragic events put the
world in general, and the United States in particular, on a crossroad.
We have the choice of marching forward toward global peace, rooted in rules
of equitable law, and fairly administered to all, the strong and the weak,
the far and the near, or to immerse ourselves in empire building in which
the strong conquer and dominate the weak.

The choice is ours, and the
United States is in a unique position—culturally, economically, and politically—to
lead the world in either direction. And given this choice, I am confident
that Americans would choose global peace over world empire. But for
America to make the right choice, political leaders, as well as the leaders
of public opinion, have to play a pivotal role in helping the public make
the right move by choosing American values over America’s narrow and short-term
interests. It is true that lending support to corrupt Arab and Muslim governments
makes it a bit easier, in the short run, for the United States to influence
the foreign and domestic policies of these governments. In the long run,
however, a foreign policy oblivious to moral standards is bound to corrupt
American politics. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have
brought loud voices calling for compromising the precious freedom Americans
enjoy in exchange for false sense of security.

Terrorism cannot be fought
through military war, but by bringing justice and eliminating the roots
of desperation. History, both old and new, is rampant with examples of
great powers that wasted its resources, and hence lost its privileged position
in the world, by improving war apparatus and overlooking the system of
justice.

Global peace cannot be achieved by
relying extensively on military might. Rather, it requires that we first
and formost strive to see the values of freedom, equality, and dignity
for all prevail throughout the world.